User talk:MrOllie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

List of code review tools[edit]

can you explain why you reverted my edit on List of tools for code review? Both tools I added are valid and I went through the process of digging through their websites to identify the list of repositories they support as well as languages and pre/post commit support for code reviews. I read the talk page there and someone else suggested that the page is only a list of 'notable code review tools' and while this may be true there is nothing on the article suggesting this and both systems I added are in wide use and notable they just don't have their own wikipedia page yet. Several weeks ago I was looking into possible code review tools and the first result in my research was always this wikipedia list page, however because it is incomplete I missed several possibilities that I could have investigated. This is what prompted me to add them to the list page. Thanks! Randyaa (talk) 22:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Allow me to quote the giant yellow text box that appeared when you edited that article: 'When editing this list bear in mind that the same notability criteria apply here as elsewhere in Wikipedia: entries with no reliable independent reliable sources listed either here or in other Wikipedia articles may not be notable, and are likely to be removed. The software developer's own website is not an independent source.' - MrOllie (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There are 148,000 results for ["kiln code review"] which one would you like to use? Instead of being so harsh with your responses and edits, perhaps a small comment and some time to allow us to find a reference would be appropriate? Wikipedia doesn't need to be such a hostile place. Randyaa (talk) 13:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Most google hits are not suitable sources. I suggest you have a look at the notability and the sourcing guidelines and write the article first. - MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Would [Evolution, Part 1: DVCS as Code Review] & [Evolution, Part 2: From Prototype to Beta] work? they clearly discuss the fact that Kiln is a code review tool and describe how they came about. Randyaa (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
No, it is not independently written, and it is a self published blog, both of which disqualify it it terms of establishing notability. I strongly suggest that you read the guidelines I linked above, as well as our guideline on conflict of interest and Wikipedia's terms of use. - MrOllie (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with the reference I added? It's a published book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garethx (talkcontribs) 19:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't discuss the software in any detail - an entry in a bullet point list isn't sufficient. - MrOllie (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly misinterpreting Wikipedia's policy on this matter. Read WP:LISTN in its whole entirety, it does not say that that every item needs to have an article, but that is just one form of selection criteria. You are purposely misinterpreting an optional style as a set rule, while such optional styles need to first be explicitly stated in an introduction to the list and only after a consensus is reached on the talk page WP:MOS#STYLEVAR. You seem to claim ownership of the page WP:OWN and instead of trying to finding a consensus, you are engaging in a slow edit war with other editors WP:EDITWAR. Dlpkbr (talk) 08:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

I am hardly alone in this 'misinterpretation', consider the contents of Wikipedia:Write the article first. - MrOllie (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Promote your approach here adversely affects the development and content publishing. The popularity of this case of fashion and glossy magazines. Opening Wikipedia we usually want to see the whole picture and not just a list of tools that could be mold. I wish you to look at the world in a new way with Wikipedia, and that in spite of its popularity it can also be covered with mold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi MrOllie. I did a through job of updating the RhodeCode page as an independent. This is my first ever wikipedia edit and I am proud of it. I fixed several errors and cleaned up the text. I don't know what beef you have with these guys but note this is a project I took on as independent user of their tool. For you just to delete everything speaks volumes about your impartiality. If you have a specific issue with something I wrote there than call it out or ask me a question but its not right you just trash someones useful effort toward making Wikipedia better. And there were errors on the page that needed to be fixed and stuff that didn't belong there. I fixed all of that. I was planning to do more of these types of edits on tools I use so so I can contribute back to a site which has helped me so much. So if there is something specific than tell me as good feedback toward my effort. All you did was trash the whole edit. On the other hand if you are one of those guys who just likes crapping on everything so be it. But note that when you do this you just make people not want to contribute. That is exactly how I feel right now. Congratulations if that was your intent. If not than tell me specifically how I can improve my edits and make contributions to Wikipedia. Karen (----) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karensage (talkcontribs) 16:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

What you did was replace the page with a PR puff piece, removing all mention of the licensing problems and adding unsourced commentary like 'used by market sector leaders in over 80 countries and 10,000 users to measurably increase software development productivity' Wikipedia articles must be written neutrally, not as advertisements. We can't have that, especially on an article that has a history of being edited by company employees. - MrOllie (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As i mentioned I do not work for RhodeCode. I am a user of their tools. I will source the user stuff as I did pull it from a PR or remove it as it sounds like you would prefer. The licensing issue made no sense at all. There is no licensing issue on RhodeCode. So thank you for telling my why you had issue -- I do thank you for that. And that is helpful. I will make some fixes now. Partly I just went to another tools page Atlassian and copied their approach to writing the page. Thanks again, Karen (Karensage (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC))

The licensing issue makes a lot of sense to me - any time a GPL project turns proprietary it is a big deal, and AFAIK most of the independent writing about this company is actually about the licensing dispute. We can't simply remove it. - MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: WP:PROD on Atlassian Stash[edit]

Greetings - I just dropped the PROD tag you had added on the Stash article and replaced it with maintenance tags for single source and citations. I came to this article looking for info on when Stash was first released, which I feel is valuable information to have. Atlassian's other products have some pretty good writeups here, and it doesn't feel right to throw out the work that's been done on this one. Please message me if you want to talk :) KarunamonTalk 18:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Re: dbForge Studio[edit]

Hi MrOllie,

My name is Jordan. I'd like to discuss the issue occured on this page -

According to the Wikipedia rules, software is notable if it has been recognized as having technical significance by reliable sources.

There is a review of dbForge Studio for SQL Server:

Though, self-published sources are largely not acceptable as sources, Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

Mr. Greg Low can be considered as expert and his review represents his own thoughts and opinion, but it's not Devart's promotional activity. As a proof, please, look at the references [1], [2], [3], [4]


  1. ^ "MVP Spotlight Greg Low". Microsoft. 
  2. ^ "Greg Low Public Profile". Microsoft. 
  3. ^ "Dr. Greg Low Profile". DBTA. 
  4. ^ "Greg Low LinkedIn Profile". 

phpMyAdmin version[edit]

Hi, Can you tell me why you reverted 4.4.12 latest version to 4.4.11? The most recent version is 4.4.12 and you reverted to 4.4.11